This article just makes me more reluctant to ever use it for anything

But if Google wants to ruin their own lang, sure by all means

Adding tracking to an actual language is unheard of, but can't say I'm surprised Google is trying

I used to think that random people on the internet could be trusted, now my attitude is (essentially) "if I don't know you, then fuck off and fuck your opinion too"

I'm not saying this directed at you OP, I've felt the same thing you've felt about the world becoming worse off

In 2018-19 I'd think about making a blog connected to my IRL credentials. Now, this isn't really something I'd consider doing. I used to want to write an autobiography, now I'd rather not say anything

And with respect to this:

> And at the same time, we get these cases where a dude like Tyre,

That whole thing makes me feel physically ill. If people are capable of that kind of cruelty, what does that say about our society?

Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others

> but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.

My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others

So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources

Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society

Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right

> Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?

Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted

Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable

This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race

Let's state the obvious here: genetics. Why did you conveniently leave that one out? Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something? Can you prove that they don't exist?

Also, before you assume I'm being more specific: I'm not saying equal access to education is a wasted endeavor. Sure, make the public school system good in rich and poor areas

But we're talking about intelligence in general here, so leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying

According to who exactly? Some stupid person somewhere? Why should anyone here care?

But really: why don't more people use ublock origin? It makes the web actually usable

If I go on a website and see a bunch of sponsored bullshit, it makes me much less likely to ever go there again

It really is. If someone mentions using reddit irl I usually assume that they're bad news and steer clear

That's assuming the IPO goes well

Did he? Whether or not that was his intent is unclear

???

CLRS says it takes negative weight edges (just no negative cycles) and does it in O(VE). I have no idea where you're getting this from

Apple owns the whole IP range 17.X.X.X, so you can just put the below line in /etc/pf.conf to block all talk with those IPs

block drop from any to 17.0.0.0/8

Also for an additional layer of protection, you can add these domains to the hosts file:

https://gitlab.com/intr0/AppleBlock/-/blob/master/AppleBlock...

Also I see a lot of people trying to defend apple in this thread. Imo life is too short to defend a corporation this large (unless you have a financial incentive to maintain trust in it, obviously)

I wasn't really trying to make an argument, it's more of a heuristic if anything

> How do you account for...

> a) the unknown?

just do whatever habit says to do (and don't call it the truth)

> b) the known delusional nature of the mind?

this is a fun one. give the delusional mind a pen, paper, and 20 years and maybe they'll write the next phenomenology of spirit and trigger world war III

If woke here means thinking that racism is bad, sure. If it means supporting gay marriage or first trimester abortion, sure. If it means not being heteronormative, thinking that gender identity should be taught in public schools, thinking that affirmative action is good... you're starting to drift into fringe territory. Not saying I don't agree with fringe, but claiming these beliefs are majority doesn't agree with experience. For the record, most people I know are democrat voters

If woke here means thinking that social justice and "systematic overhaul" (whatever that happens to mean) are a good idea, then from my own personal experience that's just corporate noise to people. The only place where I really saw a lot of this was in college where most of it was from administrators and a loud but small group of the student body

There's a reason why Obama avoided a lot of these topics while campaigning

What if a woman doesn't engage in this role? Is she still a woman? It seems like we've come full circle instead of heading in one direction

Ik this is just an AI's response, but this same tension exists elsewhere